Sunday, August 31, 2014

Is domestic violence a private matter?

Why is it that the alleged wife beating of Davao City police director Vicente Danao did not generate as much indignation as the “hipon” joke of Ramon Bautista?

I posed that question on my Facebook status wall. A former classmate of mine commented. He said that the difference between the two is that Bautista’s case happened in public, while Danao’s case is purely a private matter which should be best left for the family to resolve.

Taking that argument to its extreme, it would seem that violence against women is justified as long as it happened inside the house. Indeed, domestic violence, because it is domestic, is often seen as purely a private matter. Thus, cases of wife beatings and other forms of violence against women often go unreported.

But the case of Marivic Genosa, a battered woman herself, made the people realize the obviousdomestic violence may be domestic, but it is violence nevertheless. They started to see domestic violence in a different light. They no longer stopped at the domestic aspect of domestic violence, but now they placed more emphasis on the violence.

Marivic Genosa was convicted of parricide for killing her husband. Her case reached the Supreme Court. There, she argued that she did it only to defend herself. She anchored her defense on “Batttered Woman Syndrome.” The Supreme Court was not altogether convinced.

The Court said, “She is not entitled to complete exoneration because there was no unlawful aggressionno immediate and unexpected attack on her by her batterer-husband at the time she shot him” (People v. Genosa, GR 135981, January 15, 2004).

But because of the unique circumstances of her case, the death penalty imposed on her was reduced. The Court said, “The acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she was eight months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental state, which overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn child’s.”

In her dissent, however, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago said Marivic Genosa must be acquitted. She said, “The danger posed or created in her mind by the latter's threats using bladed weapons, bred a state of fear, where under the circumstances, the natural response of the battered woman would be to defend herself even at the cost of taking the life of the batterer.” Three more justices, including then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., joined in her dissenting opinion.

Barely two months after the Supreme Court promulgated the Genosa case, Congress passed R.A. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Anti-VAWC) of 2004.

The Anti-VAWC Act made into law the Baterred Woman Syndrome as a defense. Section 26 provides, “Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.”

The law repudiates the notion that domestic violence, which is just one form of violence against women, is a private matter. Ample provisions of the law actually allow outsiders to intervene even if the parties involved are spouses, or are in a sexual or dating relationship.

For instance, Section 9 allows, among others, “At least two (2) concerned responsible citizens of the city or municipality where the violence against women and their children occurred and who has personal knowledge of the offense committed” to file a petition for protection order.

Section 25 provides, “Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime.”

In Section 30, one of the duties imposed upon the Barangay Officials and Law Enforcers is to “respond immediately to a call for help or request for assistance or protection of the victim by entering the dwelling if necessary whether or not a protection order has been issued and ensure the safety of the victim/s.”

And in Section 34, the law exempts persons intervening from any liability: “In every case of violence against women and their children...any person, private individual or police authority or barangay official who, acting in accordance with law, responds or intervenes without using violence or restraint greater than necessary to ensure the safety of the victim, shall not be liable for any criminal, civil or administrative liability resulting therefrom.”

Despite the passage of the Anti-VAWC Act, however, there are those who still cling to the long discredited idea that domestic violence is a private matter. Indeed, defenders of Danao say that the incident between him and his wifea video of which wasuploaded on YouTubewas merely “away mag-asawa.” One should not meddle with it. 


That smacks of insensitivity. To dismiss domestic violence as a private matter despite evidence to the contrary deserves more the civilized society’s contempt than Ramon Bautista’s “hipon” joke. As Rowena V. Guanzon argued, “violence against women in the context of intimate relations is a serious human rights violation; it is not a private matter, it is a crime.”

I can't help feeling worried that he who should enforce the Anti-VAWC Law is he who violated it.